Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>
To:     Pali =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roh=E1r?= <pali.rohar@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fat: Relax checks for sector size and media type
References: <20180902131932.11558-1-pali.rohar@gmail.com>
        <87bm9ft5h5.fsf@mail.parknet.co.jp>
        <20180903074005.7e3guj24ksq2l44c@pali>
        <874lf7t3gg.fsf@mail.parknet.co.jp>
        <20180903080422.ta3clnhr5bobv6il@pali>
        <87zhwzro1o.fsf@mail.parknet.co.jp>
        <20180912101750.6slpi3puoww72xsj@pali>
Date:   Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:36:15 +0900
In-Reply-To: <20180912101750.6slpi3puoww72xsj@pali> ("Pali
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roh=E1r=22's?= message of
        "Wed, 12 Sep 2018 12:17:50 +0200")
Message-ID: <878t47roio.fsf@mail.parknet.co.jp>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Pali Roh?r <pali.rohar@gmail.com> writes:

>> If there is real user to use that, I'm ok though (of course, need
>> serious tests). However, FAT would be for exchange data with other
>> devices, and there is "cluster per sector", and spec recommends sector
>> size == device sector size. So I suspect this format is not useful.
>
> I looked into OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD source code and there is no
> explicit upper limit for sector size. Just that sector size must be
> power of two.
>
> I have not did tests yet, but you are right that some testing should be
> done.
>
> As FAT operates with clusters and cluster size is defined by sector
> size, then sectors per cluster and sector size defines cluster size. And
> cluster size itself implies maximal size of FAT filesystem.
>
> So increasing sector size could be useful to create larger FAT32
> filesystems as current limit hit by sector size = 512 bytes.
>
> What do you think, which operating systems should be tested?

Again, I suspect those custom extension (can't read by some uefi or
windows) is not useful though.

Testing on kernel that has PAGE_SIZE >= 8192, and setting FAT
sector_size >= 8192.  After that, it would be safe to remove 4096
limitation.

Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>